Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00464
Original file (BC-2007-00464.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00464
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  None Indicated

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  19 AUGUST 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he  was  awarded  the  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM) instead of the Air Force  Commendation  Medal  (AFCM)  upon  his
retirement.

Examiner’s Note:  It appears that the applicant’s son, David A.  Pennington,
Jr., has co-signed this application.  However,  he  has  not  submitted  any
legal proof of his father’s incompetency and his father’s  signature  is  on
the application.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The MSM is the traditional retirement award for an enlisted  member  of  the
Air Force who fulfills at least the minimum amount of  service  required  to
officially retire.  He met the  basic  requirements,  had  no  UIFs,  served
twice in Desert  Storm/Shield,  and  met  or  exceeded  all  scores  on  his
enlisted performance reports (EPRs).  The writer  of  his  retirement  award
may not have known what military award was proper.

No supporting documentation was submitted.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 April 1996, the applicant was honorably discharged  from  active  duty
and retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).  He was credited with  20
years and 16 days active duty service.

According to the Air Force office of primary  responsibility,  there  is  no
official documentation in the applicant’s records to verify his  entitlement
to the MSM.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   DPPPR  states
they were unable to verify the applicant’s receipt of or recommendation  for
award of the MSM.  DPPPR states written  recommendation  for  the  MSM  must
meet two criteria:

      1)  be made  by  someone,  other  than  the  member  himself,  in  the
member’s chain of command  at  the  time  of  the  incident,  and,  who  has
firsthand knowledge of the acts or achievements; and,

      2)  be  submitted  through  a  congressional  member  who  can  ask  a
military service to review a proposal for decoration based on the merits  of
the proposal and the award criteria in existence when the event occurred.

The complete DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23  Mar
07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however it is in the  interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  error  or  injustice.   After   reviewing   the   applicant’s
submission, we do not find the evidence sufficient to warrant  the  approval
of the requested relief.  It appears the  approval  authority  at  the  time
determined the AFCM was the  more  appropriate  award  for  the  applicant’s
honorable service and we find no basis upon  which  to  disagree  with  that
determination.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  While we appreciate and honor the  applicant’s  service
to his country, in  view  of  the  above  the  applicant’s  request  is  not
favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only  be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not
considered with this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 15 May 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
            Mr. Don H. Kendrick., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-00464:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 13 Mar 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 07.




      MICHAEL V. BARBINO
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03771

    Original file (BC-2006-03771.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The following changes be made to his records: 1) His Evaluation Performance Report (EPR) for the period of 1 May 97 – 17 Sep 97, and any other effects that may have resulted from it; be removed from his records; 2) His First Sergeant Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 8F000 be reinstated; 3) Retirement certificates for him and his spouse be provided; and, 4) He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) In addition to the above, a small retirement ceremony at a local base is also...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00845

    Original file (BC-2007-00845.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His supervisor told him immediately after the attack that he was recommending him for the BSM and mentioned it again when he signed his performance report. The complete DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 14 May 07, the applicant states he was never awarded or aware that he had received the AFCM for his services in Vietnam. Other than his own...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900539

    Original file (9900539.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Years later he read the citation and noticed that it indicates “Citation to Accompany the Award of the Meritorious Service Medal” for the period in question. We cannot speculate as to why the citation copy the applicant has reflects award of the MSM when all official documentation in his available military records indicates he received the AFCM. The applicant’s submission does not provide sufficiently persuasive evidence substantiating his contention that he should have received the MSM...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00307

    Original file (BC-2006-00307.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant fails to state what information on the report made it "weak". The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. Other than his own assertions, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that his rating chain abused their authority.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100175

    Original file (0100175.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application and states that there is no indication in the member’s records that he was ever recommended for a decoration or awarded one, such as the AFCM. It is incomprehensible to think that in his father’s entire military career covering World War II, Korea and service up to 1962, that he did not accomplish a specific project, plan or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00218

    Original file (BC-2007-00218.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with “V” device for his 2005 deployment, and the Air Force Expeditionary Service Medal (AFESM) with Gold Border, which proves he was in a hostile environment. They advise the Army CAB may be awarded to any soldier after 18 September 2001 performing duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized, who is personally present and actively engaged or engaged by the enemy. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00866

    Original file (BC-2007-00866.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with AFI 36-2803, recommendations for the AFCM and AFAM must be submitted as soon as possible following the act, achievement, or service. There is no documentation available or provided by the applicant that indicates his commander recommended or approved awards for the AFCM or AFAM. The timeline for submitting decorations is two years from the date of the act or achievement.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03871

    Original file (BC-2006-03871.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPPR states the AFCM was authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force on 28 Mar 58 for award to members of the Armed Forces of the Unites States who, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force after 24 Mar 58, shall have distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement or service. The complete DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00363

    Original file (BC-2006-00363.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. However, other than his own assertions, no evidence has been presented to show that the recommendation and processing of the AFCM was not in accordance with the applicable Air Force Instruction. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Feb 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00013

    Original file (BC-2003-00013.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. However, they find it plausible that his commander, not waiting for the decoration package to be completed, assumed an MSM would be approved, and read an MSM citation at the applicant’s retirement ceremony. While the applicant may have been recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) as a retirement decoration, we find no evidence that the recommendation had been completed and approved.